Comparison Overview

Edward Jones

VS

Mizuho

Edward Jones

12555 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO, 63131, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25

Edward Jones is a leading North American financial services firm in the U.S. and through its affiliate in Canada. The firm’s more than 20,000 financial advisors throughout North America serve more than 9 million clients with a total of $2.2 trillion in client assets under care as of December 31, 2024. Edward Jones' purpose is to partner for positive impact to improve the lives of its clients and colleagues, and together, better our communities and society. Through the dedication of the firm's approximately 54,000 associates and our branch presence in 68% of U.S. counties and most Canadian provinces and territories, the firm is committed to helping more people achieve financially what is most important to them. The Edward Jones website is at www.edwardjones.com, and its recruiting website is www.careers.edwardjones.com. Member SIPC.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 43,499
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Mizuho

1–5–5 Otemachi, Chiyoda–ku, Tokyo, Japan, JP, 100–8176
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

This is not your typical financial institution. It’s our people who make us a cut above. Here, every person is respected because of their differences, not in spite of them. We pride ourselves on a culture of purpose, passion and compassion. At Mizuho, we provide the stability of an international industry leader with the career trajectory of a growing business. Our steady, strategic growth gives our people at all levels rewarding degrees of responsibility and a richer work experience than a boutique firm or an established giant could offer alone. Working for Mizuho opens doors not just to a rewarding career with excellent prospects, but to lasting friendships with colleagues from diverse cultures. It’s the local expertise of our employees that makes our global network so powerful. By collaborating with colleagues and clients who have your same ambition, you can amplify your sphere of influence and base of knowledge as part of one of the largest—and growing—banks in the world. We’re all global citizens, and that’s why our company feels compelled to make an impact through more than just drawing up deals. We prove that it’s possible to do well and do good. We do right by our clients, our community and each other.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,207
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/edward-jones.jpeg
Edward Jones
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mizuho.jpeg
Mizuho
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Edward Jones
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mizuho
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Edward Jones in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mizuho in 2025.

Incident History — Edward Jones (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Edward Jones cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mizuho (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mizuho cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/edward-jones.jpeg
Edward Jones
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Accidental Data Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mizuho.jpeg
Mizuho
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mizuho company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Edward Jones company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Edward Jones company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Mizuho company has not reported any.

In the current year, Mizuho company and Edward Jones company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mizuho company nor Edward Jones company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Edward Jones company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Mizuho company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Mizuho company nor Edward Jones company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Edward Jones company nor Mizuho company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Edward Jones nor Mizuho holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Mizuho company and Edward Jones company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Edward Jones company employs more people globally than Mizuho company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Edward Jones nor Mizuho holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Mizuho holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Mizuho holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Mizuho holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Mizuho holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Mizuho holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H